End the use of “excited delirium” as a cause of death in police custody

Consensus on acute behavioural disturbance in the UK: a multidisciplinary modified Delphi study to determine what it is and how it should be managed

“…In places, this has led to potentially contentious statements, such as recommending the avoidance of phrases such as ‘superhuman strength’ (identified as a criterion disproportionately applied to people from black ethnic groups) while simultaneously identifying ‘exceptional strength’ as a feature which may be identified in presentations of ABD. 13 …”

The Canceling of Excited Delirium

“…4,5 Second, it is often used alone, without reference to an etiologically specific underlying cause. 1,[12][13][14] And third, some have associated it with racism and are concerned that it has been used inappropriately by some law enforcement agents to attempt to explain (or cover-up) a death in custody. 6,7,[15][16][17] This review will explore these issues in the context of forensic pathology.…”

“…T he term "excited delirium" has become controversial for several reasons, and various organizations advocate that it should be abandoned. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] The State of California recently enacted a law that states "A coroner, medical examiner, physician, or physician assistant shall not state on the certificate of death, or in any report, that the cause of death was excited delirium" 8 or use similar terms that include hyperactive delirium, agitated delirium, and exhaustive mania 8,9 (N.B., the term "hyperactive delirium" is a medical diagnosis listed in DSM-V TR (see below) and its use in California is now against the law). The first reason for its proposed exclusion is that is not a medical diagnosis (that is, it is not included in the ICD-10 or DSM-5 TR) 10, 11 and has not been recognized by the American Medical Association or the American Psychiatric Association.…”

“…The first reason for its proposed exclusion is that is not a medical diagnosis (that is, it is not included in the ICD-10 or DSM-5 TR) 10,11 and has not been recognized by the American Medical Association or the American Psychiatric Association 4,5 . Second, it is often used alone, without reference to an etiologically specific underlying cause 1,12–14 . And third, some have associated it with racism and are concerned that it has been used inappropriately by some law enforcement agents to attempt to explain (or cover-up) a death in custody 6,7,15–17 .…”

Scrutinizing the causal link between excited delirium syndrome and restraint: a commentary on ‘The role of restraint in fatal excited delirium: a research synthesis and pooled analysis’ by E.M.F. Strömmer, W. Leith, M.P. Zeegers, and M.D. Freeman

“…The paper has been cited multiple times in peer-reviewed journals covering forensic pathology [2][3][4], emergency care [5], psychiatry [6], and general medicine [7]. It is furthermore cited in commentaries [8,9] and in an influential report of Physicians for Human Rights [10]. In general, these publications interpret Strömmer et al as if it demonstrates a causal link between restraint and death.…”